more on CalTech/MIT Study on Voting Technologies

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:13:54 -0700
> From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] CalTech/MIT Study on Voting Technologies
> X-Sender: rmm () unidot com
> To: dave () farber net
>
> At 03:29 PM 9/16/03 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:45:50 -0400
> > From: "Ronald L. Rivest" <rivest () mit edu>
> > To: dave () farber net
> >
> >
> > Just for the record, the CalTech/MIT report
> > on voting technologies is posted at:
> >
> >     http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/
> >
> >         Cheers,
> >         Ron Rivest
>
>
> I am familiar with this report, which is well done.  It does,
> however, raise more questions than it answers.  Just why,
> for instance should punch card machine miss more votes
> than paper ballots, and why should electronic machines
> and lever machines miss still more.  If one were to take
> this report as gospel, then we clearly would not be moving
> in the direction of electronic voting machines.  More
> important, perhaps, is why the undervote varies quite
> dramatically from  location to location.
>
> My original question is still unanswered.  So the next
> question is "Why is not someone running a controlled
> experiment?"  It should not be too hard to set one up,
> and there are plenty of machines which are rarely used
> with which to experiment.
>
> It seems to me that the focus on missing a few percent
> of the vote (by any technology) is swamped by the 50%
> of the people who don't vote anyway.  Unless we have
> some reason to believe that some particular component
> of the electorate is being systematically disenfranchised
> then 2-5% missed votes is minor noise compared to the
> much larger number who don't bother to go to the polls
> at all.
>
> I am not trying to ignore the questions of fraud and
> security, just trying to get at one issue at a time.  This
> came up because of the recent 9th Circuit Court
> decision essentially claiming that punch card systems
> were inferior to electronic voting systems, a proposition
> for which I don't find any real support.
>
> Anybody game for defining a controlled experiment to
> determine which of the systems currently in use are
> defective and in which ways?
>
> Bob

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/